Lawmakers narrow down contraception bill

As promised, supporters this afternoon narrowed down a proposal to allow some employers to deny contraception coverage to their workers if they have a religious objection to birth control.

Six legislators from the House and the Senate met in a conference committee to dramatically scale down the measure so it would only apply to “religiously affiliated employers.”

The amendment defines that to mean employers that are already exempted from providing contraception coverage under state law — meaning those who employ and serve people of the same faith — and an entity whose incorporation papers “clearly state that it is a religiously motivated organization and whose religious beliefs are central to the organization’s operating principles.”

The original bill would have allowed any Arizona employer to deny contraception coverage for religious reasons.

During the conference committee, Republicans also defeated two amendments by Sen. Linda Lopez to restore a clause that prohibits discrimination against employees who get contraception coverage elsewhere, and to require businesses that claim religious objections against contraception to inform current and prospective employees that they won’t cover payment for it.

Lopez, a Tucson Democrat, said her amendments were necessary to ensure that current and prospective employees know what kind of coverage they will get and guarantee that they are not discriminated against because they use contraception.

She also said the bill is still broad, even with the amendment.

“I don’t know that it really changes this legislation at all,” Lopez said.

Republicans countered that the measure, HB2625, already contains guarantees against discrimination that are found in state and federal laws.

House Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, the bill’s sponsor, said employees already get the information about their health coverage during the annual benefits renewal period.

“If it was important to me – something that was super important to me – I would have checked into that before I worked for the company,” she said.

The original version of the bill was initially defeated in the Senate. Supporters later revived the legislation and convinced enough lawmakers to switch to “yes” with the promise of a watered-down bill.

The amended legislation still needs final approval in both the Senate and the House.

Those votes could take place as early as Wednesday.

Critics have argued that the original proposal intrudes on women’s privacy, and favors the religious beliefs of employers without regard for women’s health.

During a debate in the Senate last week, Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson, said the proposal imposes the religious beliefs of social conservatives on women.

“They want to control women’s bodies,” she said.

But Sen. Nancy Barto, a Republican from Phoenix and a socially conservative lawmaker, said the bill doesn’t restrict women’s access to contraception.

Contraception is readily available at a low cost, she said.

What the bill does, she added, is ensure that employers aren’t forced to violate their religious beliefs.

Earlier, assurances that women won’t be forced to disclose private medical information to their bosses failed to persuade the Senate to advance the proposal, leading supporters to scale back their original goal.

2 comments

What happened to the freedom for women in Arizona? We, not government, should decide what happens to our bodies and what medications we should take! That is between the doctor and the patient and has no reason to be the right of any employer. Will the employment application now ask “Do you use contraceptives in order for the employer to be assured he/she is hiring the employee who has similar religious beliefs? Will the employer hire someone who has different beliefs? If so, will you subject that person to discrimination? Is this not discrimination based on religion? What happened to the Civil Rights Act? Are legislators forgetting or they just do not care about women’s right to choose what happens to their own bodies. You are violating the rights of women and the law against religious discrimination.